If the Government wanted to prosecute the NRA as a terrorist organization to weaken the gun lobby, what would be a potential legal strategy?
If we presume that the United States government decided to focus on a lobbying group rather than attempting to weaken the Second Amendment itself, then it would fail spectacularly. It may even result in the ACLU defending the NRA in the federal court system.The question misunderstands how lobbying work in the US government. The NRA simply lobbies representatives and senators and they, in turn, block legislation or they support those pieces of legislation they believe will assist their constituents. If the government decided that any aspect of this was somehow "terrorism" they would have to do so in a manner that would pass the smell test in various courts of law. If they didn't, then there would be no way that charges could even be brought against the organization.This one of the reasons that despite their actions being "terrorism" and their being threats to national security, the government doesn't go after organized criminals or foreign drug cartels as being terrorist groups. The courts recognize that there are adequate measures within the current structure of the law to handle these individuals without resorting to measures which themselves may make it easier for defendants to both defend themselves and get acquitted.Other than certain collective bargaining groups and their leadership, there's no precedent for the US government to go after a lobbying group as a criminal conspiracy, much less a terrorist organization. Without significant changes in the First Amendment and getting a number of judges on the federal level "on board:" it's nearly impossible to see how it could be done to the NRA.
What would happen if the entire world attacked the US?
Let’s note the scenario posed by the question - “The rest of the world attacks the US”. This is not the USA attacking the rest of the world or invading the rest of the world. This is not about the US’s past or future (things will change by 2040 or even 2030, how is anyone’s guess).The scenario posed is of the rest of the world attacking the USA today in 2017 which means an invasion of the US homelands.The USA would defeat any invasion of its lands.But the USA would not be able to break a blockade or invade “the rest of the world”The US navy can crush literally all the other navies of the world combined —you see this below? It’s a carrier strike group:Carrier battle group - WikipediaThe US has 11 of these massive groups.How many does the rest of the world have, combined? 5 (I’m discounting helicopter carriers) and those don’t have the same number of shipsList of aircraft carriers in service - WikipediaThe US airforce can destroy the Canadian and Mexican — and assuming the rest of the world manages to transport their aircrafts to these two countries before the USN sinks them, the USAF can easily defend against both.The US has enough oil, metals, ammunition, food etc. to hold off indefinitely on any and all blockades.The US army and Marines can easily defend its land borders and would probably conquer Canada with no issue.Nuclear weapons? Suicidal for both sides, plus the USA has THAAD and a strict area to defend, not the whole worldIn short, the World army would be stopped somewhere in Mexico and be in a massive stalemate.Next, there would be internal fights in the anti-US coalition and the seige would lift quickly.The USA today in 2017 is like Rome in 100 AD - unstoppable, unbeatable and supremely powerful.
Was the suggestion on Fox News that people should have rushed the mass gunman a good strategy to adopt in an active shooter situation?
Would it work, hypothetically speaking? Yeah.Problem is you’re talking about a bunch of random people during a planned out attack. Someone shoots up a nursing home, are the geriatrics really going to swamp the shooter?Kids swarming an attacker? (Not that that is in any way their responsibility.)A shooter from a concealed position firing on a crowd? They’ll never even know where the fire is coming from.These are human damn beings in the United States of America, not 10,000 Chinese Communists swarming a hill in Korea.It could work. Could. End of the day the shooter is going to have to reload or miss but how many fathers, daughters, mothers, and sons will die because they decided to emulate an Imperial Japanese banzai attack? It’s not their job to stand and fight. I’m trained, I have been in combat, most people have not. What are we going to do? Send everyone to Mass Shooter Education Camp every year and have them run while machineguns are providing overhead fire? Ridiculous. We cannot and should not expect people to waste their lives. It’s hard enough asking a person to spend their life, I would never ask or tell someone to do this.What if the shooter is wearing an S-Vest? He learns of America’s new bang up strategy to stop shooters and when 30 people swarm him he disappears in a cloud of blood, bone, fire, and ball bearings and takes 20 more people with him.This idea is valid solely in the sense of could they. Yes, as I said, it could work. Eventually, given enough people or the right space, then the shooter would be overwhelmed by the mass of human flesh. Or if the shooter has only 100 rounds and there’s 105 people. They’re still not trained, they’re unarmed, they have no body armor.It is the responsibility of shepherds and sheepdogs to protect the flock, not for the sheep to rush headlong into the wolf’s jaws.
Can fingerprints provided for a background check be used as criminal evidence?
okay, so say (hypothetically) that i touched an object that was illegal and left a fingerprint. shortly after leaving the fingerprint, the object was taken by the police. undoubtedly, the police would find the fingerprint, and put it into their fingerprint database. so then, if i submitted my fingerprints for a background check, could they use that info to ID me [to ID the fingerprint left on the object], and to then charge me with a crime? i think this is an interesting question which, i could find no information about via google. thoughts / answers?
US Government responsible for 9/11?
Matt P, thank you so much for the link. I especially enjoyed this page here- www.debunking911.com/meeting.htm. This seems to be *exactly* what conspiracy theorists are suggesting happened. Now, don't get me wrong.. I know there are times that our government is full of crap and just blatantly lies to us.. but really... saying that *this* was how 9/11 came to be is just effing ludicrous. How can people not see that? Eesh.